The article, "The Elimination of the Kulaks as
Class," in No. 16 of Krasnaya Zvezda1 is undeniably correct in the main, but it contains two inaccuracies of
formulation. It seems to me that these inaccuracies must
be corrected.

1. The article says:

"In the restoration period, we conducted a policy of restricting the capitalist elements of town and country. With the inauguration of the reconstruction period, we passed from the policy
restricting to the policy of ousting them."

This statement is incorrect. The policy of restrict
ing the capitalist elements and the policy of ousting
them are not two different policies. They are one and
the same policy. Ousting the capitalist elements in the
countryside is an inevitable result and component part
of the policy of restricting the capitalist elements, the
policy of restricting the kulaks' exploiting tendencies.
Ousting the capitalist elements in the countryside must
not be regarded as equivalent to ousting the kulaks as a
class. Ousting the capitalist elements in the countryside
means ousting and overcoming individual sections of the
kulaks, those unable to bear the burden of taxation and
the Soviet government's system of restrictive measures.

Naturally, the policy of restricting the kulaks' exploiting tendencies, the policy of restricting the capitalist
elements in the countryside, cannot but lead to the ousting of individual sections of the kulaks. Consequently,
ousting individual sections of the kulaks cannot be regarded otherwise than as an inevitable result and a component part of the policy of restricting the capitalist
elements in the countryside.

We pursued this policy not only in the restoration
period, but also in the period of reconstruction, and in
the period following the Fifteenth Congress (December
1927), and in the period of the Sixteenth Conference of
our Party (April 1929), as well as after that conference
right down to the summer of 1929, when the phase of complete collectivisation set in, and when the change to the
policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class began.

If one examines the most important documents of our
Party from, say, the Fourteenth Congress in December
1925 (see the resolution on the report of the Central
Committee2 ) to the Sixteenth Conference in April 1929
(see the resolution on "Ways and Means of Promoting
Agriculture"3 ), one cannot fail to notice that the thesis
about "restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks," or about "restricting the growth of capitalism in
the countryside" always goes side by side with the thesis
about "ousting the capitalist elements in the countryside,"
about "overcoming the capitalist elements in the countryside."

What does that mean?

It means that the Party does not separate the ousting
of the capitalist elements in the countryside from the
policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the
kulaks, from the policy of restricting the capitalist
elements in the countryside.

Both the Fifteenth Party Congress and the Sixteenth
Conference stood wholeheartedly for the policy of "restricting the exploiting proclivities of the agricultural
bourgeoisie" (Fifteenth Congress resolution on "Work in
the Countryside"4 ), for the policy of "adopting new measures to restrict the development of capitalism in the
countryside" (ibid.), for the policy of "resolutely restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks" (see Fifteenth
Congress resolution on the five-year plan5 ), for the policy of "an offensive against the kulaks" in the sense
of "passing to further, more systematic and persistent
restriction of the kulak and private trader" (ibid.), for
the policy of "still more resolute economic ousting" of
the "elements of private-capitalist economy" in town
and country (see Fifteenth Congress resolution on the
report of the Central Committee6 ).

Consequently, a) the author of the above-mentioned
article is wrong in depicting the policy of restricting
the capitalist elements and the policy of ousting them
as two different policies. The facts show that what we
have here is one general policy of restricting capitalism,
a component part and result of which is the ousting of
individual sections of the kulaks.

Consequently, b) the author of the above-mentioned
article is wrong in asserting that the ousting of the capitalist elements in the countryside began only in the
period of reconstruction, in the period of the Fifteenth
Congress. In point of fact, the ousting took place both before the Fifteenth Congress, in the restoration period,
and after the Fifteenth Congress, in the reconstruction
period. In the period of the Fifteenth Congress the policy
of restricting the kulaks' exploiting tendencies was only
intensified by new and additional measures, as a result of
which the ousting of individual sections of the kulaks
was also bound to be intensified.

2. The article says:

"The policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class entirely
follows from the policy of ousting the capitalist elements, being
a continuation of this policy in a new stage."

This statement is inaccurate and, therefore, untrue.
Naturally, the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class
could not have fallen from the skies. The way for it was
prepared by the entire preceding period of restricting,
and hence of ousting, the capitalist elements in the countryside. But this does not mean that it does not differ
radically from the policy of restricting (and ousting) the
capitalist elements in the countryside, that it is a continuation of the restriction policy. To say what our author
says is to deny that there has been a change in the development of the countryside since the summer of 1929.
To say what he does is to, deny that during this period
we have executed a turn in our Party's policy in the
countryside. To say what he does is to create a certain
ideological refuge for the Right elements in our Party,
who are now clinging to the Fifteenth Congress decisions
in opposition to the Party's new policy, just as at one
time Frumkin clung to the Fourteenth Congress decisions
in opposition to the policy of promoting collective farms
and state farms.

What was the point of departure of the Fifteenth
Congress in proclaiming an intensification of the policy
of restricting (and ousting) the capitalist elements in
the countryside? Its point of departure was that, despite this restricting of the kulaks, they, as a class,
nevertheless were bound to remain for the time being. On those grounds, the Fifteenth Congress left in
force the law on renting land, although it knew very
well that it was mostly kulaks who rented land. On those
grounds, the Fifteenth Congress left in force the law on
hiring labour in the countryside, and demanded that it
should be strictly observed. On those grounds, it was
again proclaimed that dekulakisation was impermissible.
Do these laws and decisions contradict the policy of
restricting (and ousting) the capitalist elements in the
countryside? Certainly not. Do these laws and decisions
contradict the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class?
Certainly, they do! Consequently, these laws and decisions must now be set aside in the areas of complete collectivisation, which is spreading by leaps and bounds.
Incidentally, they have already been set aside by the very
progress of the collective-farm movement in the areas of
complete collectivisation.

Can it, then, be affirmed that the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class is a continuation of the policy
of restricting (and ousting) the capitalist elements in
the countryside? Obviously, it cannot.

The author of the above-mentioned article forgets
that the kulak class, as a class, cannot be ousted by
taxation measures or any other restrictions, if this class
is allowed to retain instruments of production and the
right to free use of land, and if in our practical activity
we preserve in the countryside the law on hiring labour, the
law on renting land, and the ban on dekulakisation. The
of restricting (and ousting) the capitalist elements in
the countryside? Its point of departure was that, despite this restricting of the kulaks, they, as a class,
nevertheless were bound to remain for the time being. On those grounds, the Fifteenth Congress left in
force the law on renting land, although it knew very
well that it was mostly kulaks who rented land. On those
grounds, the Fifteenth Congress left in force the law on
hiring labour in the countryside, and demanded that it
should be strictly observed. On those grounds, it was
again proclaimed that dekulakisation was impermissible.
Do these laws and decisions contradict the policy of
restricting (and ousting) the capitalist elements in the
countryside? Certainly not. Do these laws and decisions
contradict the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class?
Certainly, they do! Consequently, these laws and decisions must now be set aside in the areas of complete collectivisation, which is spreading by leaps and bounds.
Incidentally, they have already been set aside by the very
progress of the collective-farm movement in the areas of
complete collectivisation.

Can it, then, be affirmed that the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class is a continuation of the policy
of restricting (and ousting) the capitalist elements in
the countryside? Obviously, it cannot.

The author of the above-mentioned article forgets
that the kulak class, as a class, cannot be ousted by
taxation measures or any other restrictions, if this class
is allowed to retain instruments of production and the
right to free use of land, and if in our practical activity
we preserve in the countryside the law on hiring labour, the
law on renting land, and the ban on dekulakisation. The
author forgets that the policy of restricting the exploiting
tendencies of the kulaks enables us to count only on ousting individual sections of the kulaks, which does not
contradict, but, on the contrary, presumes the preservation for the time being of the kulaks as a class. As a
means of ousting the kulaks as a class, the policy of restricting and ousting individual sections of the kulaks is inadequate. In order to oust the kulaks as a class, the resistance of this class must be smashed in open battle
and it must be deprived of the productive sources of its
existence and development (free use of land, instruments
of production, land-renting, right to hire labour, etc.).

That is a turn towards the policy of eliminating the
kulaks as a class. Without it, talk about ousting the
kulaks as a class is empty prattle, acceptable and profitable only to the Right deviators. Without it, no substantial, let alone complete, collectivisation of the countryside is conceivable. That is well understood by our
poor and middle peasants, who are smashing the kulaks
and introducing complete collectivisation. That, evidently, is not yet understood by some of our comrades.

Hence, the Party's present policy in the countryside
is not a continuation of the old policy, but a turn away
from the old policy of restricting (and ousting) the capitalist elements in the countryside towards the new policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class.

J. Stalin

Notes

1.Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star)—a military and political daily
newspaper founded in January 1924. In March 1953 it became
the central organ of the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Defence.

3. For the Sixteenth Party Conference resolution on "Ways and
Means of Promoting Agriculture and Tax Relief for the Middle
Peasant," see Resolutions and Decisions of C.P.S.U. Con-
gresses, Conferences and Central Committee Plenums, Part II,
1953, pp. 455-69.

5. For the Fifteenth Party Congress resolution on "Directives for the Compilation of a Five-Year Economic Plan," see Resolutions and Decisions of C.P.S.U. Congresses, Conferences and Central Committee Plenums Part II, 1953, pp. 330-49.